1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to accessories for bicycles, motorcycles, and other conveyances lacking an outer, protective barrier.
2. Background Information
Each day, approximately 1000 Americans must seek emergency treatment for dog bites (Emergency Department Visits and Inpatient Stays Involving Dog Bites, 2008, by Laurel Holmquist, M.A. and Anne Elixhauser, Ph.D., Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Md., November 2010). Accounting, in no small measure, to these bites, as well as other forms of injuries relating to dog attacks or those which occur in the context of cyclists (and operators of other vehicles devoid of external protection) when attacked by dogs. This problem is of such a magnitude that a number of websites and portions thereof (including those of the respected ASPCA) are devoted to this very topic. See, for example:                http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtualpet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/dogs-chasing-bicycles-skateboards-and-other-moving;        http://www.clickertraining.com/node/3539; and        http://www.phred.org/˜alex/kenkifer/www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/dogs.htm.Injuries arising from attacks by dogs upon cyclists are not limited to bites and scratches. In many cases, crashes that produce their own injuries are the result of a cyclist trying to outpace or otherwise avoid a pursuing dog or pack of dogs.        
It might be reasonably said that there are as many opinions on minimizing dog attacks upon cyclists as there are opinion givers. Opinions include simply stopping, throwing things at dogs, trying to out pace dogs, and spraying some kind of repellent. At present, none of these options are realistic, at least in many cases. Stopping may remove the allure for some dogs, but in other cases may simply make an attack easier for the dogs. Throwing things at dogs may aggravate otherwise playful dogs, and actually increase the risk of attack if cyclist and dog come into direct contact. Outpacing a pursuing dog or pack of dogs is often not possible, and may involve loss of control by the cyclist. Finally, accessing and then operating a can or bottle of some form of repellent carries its own risks, including loss of control while attempting to outpace a pursuer.
Somehow repelling a dog, without a need for reckless driving, throwing objects while driving, or stopping in hopes that a dog is only chasing out of playfulness would clearly be an optimal choice. Therefore, use of a repellent, but in a manner that is practicable and effective, and not disruptive of normal cycling behavior, would represent the most desirable option for avoiding injury relating to dog pursuits and attacks.
In view of the foregoing, it would well serve the interests of cyclists (and operators of other vehicles not providing an outer, protective shell), as well as many others to provide a means by which dog repellent may be safely and effectively used by cyclists to avoid pursuit by dogs and associated attacks. Others benefited would include dog owners who may avoid legal liability otherwise arising from dog-induced injuries, loved ones of those whose injuries are thereby prevented, and society in general who otherwise collectively bear the costs associated with burdens on insurance and healthcare systems arising from such injuries.